The Middle East Today: Ha, Ha, Ha! Stop! It’s Too Funny! I Can’t Take It Any More!

By Barry Rubin

There’s a saying that goes something like this: When things are bad, a Jew cries. When they get even worse, a Jew cries more. And when they even get worse, a Jew laughs. As indelicate as this may seem, the current situation makes me want to laugh.

That’s so because things are more ridiculous than they are scary. As the advice and claims of others get increasingly absurd, you have no desire to listen to them. You just have to do what you know is right and stop having any doubts about it precisely because the arguments on the other side are just so historically inaccurate, factually false,.and illogical.

For those joining the story late–a group that seems to include Western politicians, media and academic “experts”–here’s a little background. In 1993, Israel made an agreement with the PLO to try to achieve peace. It turned over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank to a Palestinian government. Israel accepted the establishment of large security forces, the supply of guns, and the transfer of billions of dollars of aid.

Israel made major offers of territory and concessions to Syria and the Palestinian Authority in 2000, after almost a decade of negotiation. The other side rejected those compromise solutions. The Palestinian leadership instead launched a five-year-long war of terrorism. They lost. Then Israel was attacked by Hizballah. The world intervened and made promises to Israel. These were broken. Then Israel was attacked by Hamas. It defended itself. Again it won, but the world rushed in to save Hamas and to condemn Israel.

Of course, you can say that Israel did mean things and didn’t keep every commitment it made. Yet any balanced and honest assessment has to acknowledge the basic accuracy of the preceding summary. And any that doesn’t is basically worthless as a guide to policy or education.

Now, what are the latest developments? Well, let’s see:

–Turkey’s government has gone beserk (in fact, a product of its Islamism and a celebration of breaking the armed forces that posed the last barrier to their total control of the country) and has started acting as if it is at war with Israel. There is a real possibility that Turkish naval vessels will escort ships organized by terrorist groups to violate a legal blockade to strengthen a regime in the Gaza Strip that openly talks about killing all of the world’s Jews. That government, behaving as if it is at war with Israel, is simultaneously being used by the U.S. government to help direct Syria’s future and lead its main new counterterrorism project.

Feel the chuckles coming on yet?

–The Palestinian Authority, allied with the aforementioned antisemitic, genocidal Hamas, violates all of the agreements it made during the last 18 years—after refusing to negotiate for 2 years—by seeking unilateral independence in the UN. This would mean it will never have to negotiate with Israel or compromise in any way. Thus, this stratagem will kill any chance of negotiations.

Nevertheless, countries are lining up to vote in favor of this proposal. It’s the ultimate embodiment of “social justice” and endless entitlements. The Palestinians “deserve” a state and don’t have to do anything at all to obtain one except to demand it.

–Egypt’s revolution is baying for Israel’s blood. Palestinian-Egyptian terrorists cross Israel’s border and kill Israeli civilians; a mob attacks the Israeli embassy as the authorities stand by and do nothing. Hysteria returns to the country as if the Camp David peace agreement never happened. The Muslim Brotherhood—which we were told is weak and not Islamist—is now heading toward either a takeover or at least becoming the country’s most powerful force.

–What is the reaction in much of the Media, Universities, and Governments? Let’s use the appropriate acronym for this trio—MUG. Guess who is getting mugged?

Let me limit myself to one example of the genre. The former failed and minor Jewish organizational politician Seymour Reich writes in the NewYork Times:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gained nothing—except placating his right-wing coalition — by rebuffing President Obama’s proposal in May for negotiating Israeli-Palestinian borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, although some reports indicated that he may have later softened his stand.”

This is an amazing paragraph, if only for the fact that Reich attacks Netanyahu for taking a position that Reich admits he didn’t actually take! And after many occasions on which Netanyahu did precisely what Reich wants failed. Of course, there’s no mention about years of Palestinian intransigence or of the previous risks and concessions made by Israel and even by Netanyahu.

I do not mean this as a direct reference to Mr. Reich but as an observation to the current institutional set-up. In Biblical times, one sold out for a bowl of stew (“mess of pottage”) while today one does so for a New York Times op ed piece, or perhaps a tenured professorship, or admiring media coverage of oneself. Christians speak of “the wages of sin.” Well, those salaries are at all-time highs, with great fringe benefits, and extremely low unemployment.

Reich continues. “Mr. Netanyahu must step back from the brink. He should cast aside his far-right coalition members, form a government with moderate parties and add a freeze on settlement construction to an offer to negotiate without preconditions. This would demonstrate seriousness.”

Why does Israel or Netanyahu need to show at this date that they are serious? Doesn’t the virtually daily efforts of Netanyahu to restart negotiations show seriousness? The nine-month-long settlement freeze? The quick acceptance of Obama’s proposal for a summit conference at the end of 2009?

I will pay no more attention to these people. They are not serious. They are deaf to what we say and blind to what we do. They are not dealing with reality. As our next-door neighbors say: Let them go drink the Nile!

They only have one note: It’s all Israel’ fault! If it only had offered more and accepted a Palestinian state everything would be fine. If it gave everything and demanded nothing—since the PA is unwilling to make any concession—then everything would be fine.

As to everything else in the region from Palestinian intransigence to the alliance with Hamas to events in Egypt and Turkey, there only response is to say that it’s not really happening! The Muslim Brotherhood was real sorry about the attack on the embassy (then how come it endorsed the assault?) The moderate secularists will win everywhere. Turkey is just miffed that Israel didn’t capitulate totally.

Israel is isolated! So rather than be isolated it should make every concession demanded of it? And then everyone will love it and give up the war against it.

The fact that this is what we have been told repeatedly and it hasn’t happened means nothing! Oh, no. This time, once Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders, recognizes the Fatah-Hamas regime, and doesn’t make trouble over little things like the Palestinians refusing to end the conflict even under those conditions; the military build-up in Palestine; and the demand that a few million Palestinians can come live in Israel then everything will really be great!

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Starting to understand why I’m laughing?

Let me take one example out of hundreds to show the absurdity of the situation. The sufferings of which Palestinians so upsets and animates Egyptians, Turks, and the Western left? Those in the Gaza Strip. What is the strategy of the Gaza Strip’s government? Kill the Jews. It is more openly radical than the policy of the PLO in the 1960s and1970s. How many Israeli soldiers and settlements are in the Gaza Strip? Zero. How many rockets from the Gaza Strip are in Israel? Thousands! So this is why I’m laughing.

First, the claims, arguments, and demands being made against Israel are ridiculous.

Second, they have become so ridiculous that maybe people should start to notice.

Third, since there is no alternative in the face of this nonsense, we know that our course is a correct one. We know that more risks, concessions, and apologies will have no positive effect for Israel’s interests or security. We know that courting death and disaster will not even win applause or sympathy.

Please listen very carefully and I will put the following conclusions in boldface:

The Palestinians and Arab regimes have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us any closer to a stable and secure peace. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default goal of wiping Israel off the map.

The Western democracies have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us greater support and more help from them if and when those actions backfire against Israel. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default position that it is all Israel’s fault

Today, Israel gives up south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and most of the West Bank as well as offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. Tomorrow they will say that Israel has done nothing. The radicals claim that Israel does not want peace; the relative moderates that Israel hasn’t shown that it wants peace.
Consequently, with full good conscience, we can justify our laughter on pragmatic realpolitik or on spiritual terms. Regarding the former, an idiotic analysis fails; the truth comes out; those who follow foolish policies fall.

And for those of you who are spiritually inclined: “The wicked plot against the righteous, and threatens him with his teeth. The Lord doth laugh at him; for He sees that his day is coming.” –Psalm 37

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Specifics Released About the Gilad Shalit Deal

Last night Israel's Cabinet approved the deal with Hamas for the release of Gilad Shalit by a vote of 26-3. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered some hints about  why a deal was finally made.

“With everything that is happening in Egypt and the region, I don’t know if the future would have allowed us to get a better deal -- or any deal at all for that matter,” Netanyahu said on Israeli television. "The window appeared following fears that collapsing Mideast regimes and the rise of extremist forces would make Gilad Shalit's return impossible."

My friend and teacher Barry Rubin has provided me with more specific information about the deal to release kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit.

• The number 1000 is impressive but most will be chosen by Israel, meaning they will be prisoners with the lightest sentences an crimes, in other words, people who would have been released anyway during the next year or two.

• Israel rejected Hamas’s demand to release those being called “arch-terrorists” who were major organizers of attacks or responsible for a larger loss of life.

• Of the most serious terrorist prisoners only a bit over 96 will be released into the West Bank and 14 to east Jerusalem where they could cause direct trouble for Israel The rest will be sent to the Gaza Strip or deported altogether. Those with lighter sentences who live in the West Bank would have been sent there anyway when their sentences were finished.

• Hamas did a politically clever thing by demanding that half of the named prisoners be non-Hamas people. The goal is to make Hamas more popular among Fatah supporters and on the West Bank.

The plan is as follows:

• After a 72 hour wait following the issuing of a list of those to be released–to let families of victims to file petitions against it–the minister of justice will signal readiness to carry out the deal Gilad Shalit will arrive in Cairo. At that point, Israel will release about 450 terrorists under heavy sentence.

Of these 450 prisoners:

• 131 Gaza Strip residents will go there.

• 163 West Bank residents will be expelled from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.

• 40 will be expelled overseas

• 96 will return to their homes in the West Bank 

• 14 will return to their homes in east Jerusalem 

• 6 Israeli Arabs will be released to their homes.

• At this point Shalit will be released in Cairo and can return to Israel. After Shalit arrives. 550 prisoners with lighter sentences, chosen by Israel, will be released.

Based on the description it does not seem that either Marwan Barghouti or his cousin who combined are responsible for 50+ deaths are included  in the deal. 

There seems to be  divide between Jews in the diaspora and Israelis regarding this deal.  As predicted yesterday, many Jews outside of Israel are complaining that Israel gave up too much, but the vast majority of Israelis are supporting the deal.  While most Israelis agree that it is a high price, they believe there is a moral imperative to bring Gilad Shalit home.

Breaking News! Gilad Shalit Coming Home

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has confirmed that a deal with Hamas, brokered by Egypt has been reach that will free Gilad Shalit.   Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas five years ago, and the terrorist group has refused to allow the Red Cross to visit him so no one can be sure of his condition. There was a short video of Shalit released by Hamas in Oct. 2009 but nothing since.



Information is still coming in but the outline of the deal includes the release of 1000 Palestinian prisoners by Israel, 300 of them are serving life sentences for terrorist attacks.

Also, according to sources one of those 300 convicted of murder to be released is Marwan Barghouti, who was sentenced in 2004 to five life sentences for planning and carrying out the murder of five Israelis, and involvement in the murders of another 33.

Among the terror attacks that Barghouti planned and participated in were a June 2001 attack in Maale Adumim in which a Greek monk was murdered as his beard made him look Jewish as he drove by the terrorists, a January 2002 terror attack on a gas station in Givat Zeev, a March 2002 attack at Tel Aviv's Seafood Market restaurant, in which three people were murdered, and a car bomb attack in Jerusalem.

Barghouti is also seen as a political rival to PA President Abbas.

Speaking to Reporters Netanyahu said

"In the coming days we will return Gilad to the bosom of his parents, Aviva and Noam, to his brother Yoel, his sister Hadas, his grandfather Tzvi and the entire people of Israel," Netanyahu said.

"Two and a half years ago, with the forming of [my] government, I took it upon myself as my most significant task to return Gilad to his people and his family and return him alive and well," the premier said, adding: "Gilad has spend five years in the most horrible of captivities, without us knowing what was his condition."

"I do not know if the near future would have allowed us to achieve a better deal, or a deal at all, since it is very likely that this window of opportunity created in these circumstances would have finally closed, and we wouldn't have freed Gilad at all," he added.

'Those circumstances which Netanyahu speaks is the radicalization of Israel's neighbors, certainly Egypt, for example, will not be as willing to mediate a deal, once the Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

There will be those who will rant about how horrible this deal is, especially the release of Barghouti and people who are responsible for even more deaths than him.

Allow me to respond in advance to those rants. For those of us living outside of Israel, it is none of our business. Until you live on the front lines of the war against Palestinian terror you have no right to complain when Israel makes a prisoner exchange. It is their child being released, and it is their arses on the line should any of these released prisoners return to terrorism.

While I haven't spoken to my Israeli friends since the deal was announced, I guarantee you that for Israelis this deal is a gut wrenching experience after five years a young man with a boyish face returns home, and at the same time they may be condemning others to death by these terrorists hands.  One could argue both ways, but the real difference between Israel and the terrorists is that they value each human life, and each one of their soldiers is like their child. Unlike the terrorists no life, on either side is expendable. The deal is gut wrenching, but as Israelis and as Jews there was no other choice.

UPDATE Carl In Jerusalem is reporting 

Israel Radio is reporting that Marwan Barghouti, Abdullah Barghouti and Hassam Salameh - all leaders of the intifadeh - will not be freed (The New York Times says Marwan Barghouti will be freed). But Amana Mona and Ahlam Tamimi will be freed. Israel Radio also reports that Hamas supporters in Gaza are disappointed that Hamas didn't get more.

The New York Times Only 93.3% Biased Against Israel

The New York Times is a weird bird. Owned by a family whose heritage is Jewish, it has always done what-ever it can to work against the interests of the Jewish people.  For example the progressive paper of record buried reports about the Holocaust while it was happening. Maybe the NY Times doesn't believe that Jews can suffer, or maybe they just didn't want to appear too Jewish.

Throughout the past 44 years, the Times has specialized in criticizing Israel never, as Newspapers are supposed to do, trying to be balanced.  A prime example is the month we just finished, September 2011. Daniel Goldstein of the Gloria Center kept track of all of the Op-Eds run by the paper, 15 discussed Israel, only 1 was positive, that makes the NY Times 93.3% anti-Israel for the month. 


Below is the fruit of Mr. Goldstein's research:

1) Turkey, Israel and the Flotilla - Editorial – September 2, 2011

Israel accepted the findings by the United Nations and said that it hoped to mend ties with Turkey, but it reiterated that it would not apologize. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to apologize to Turkey. American officials are going to have to keep trying with both sides. We don’t blame Israel for wondering if Turkey is keeping this conflict going to burnish its standing in the Arab world. Turkey is risking a lot, including billions in trade with Israel and its reputation as a responsible international player. Israel certainly doesn’t need to be any more isolated than it is. Israel should apologize for the deaths. And Turkey should stop upping the ante.

I’m surprised here. Yes I’m a little put off by the need to tweak Israel on the apology. But overall I’d have to say that this editorial substantially takes the Israeli side. Running Total:  Anti-Israel 0 / Pro-Israel 1
2) Israel Isolates Itself - Roger Cohen – September 6, 2011

Senior Turkish officials told me Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had raised Dogan’s fate with President Obama. But of course no U.S. president, and certainly no first-term U.S. president, would say what Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said: “The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable.” Even if there’s an American citizen killed, raising such questions about Israel is a political no-no. So it goes in the taboo-littered cul-de-sac of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, a foreign policy that is in large measure a domestic policy. The Palmer report, leaked to The New York Times last week, is a split-the-difference document, with the Israeli and Turkish members of the panel including notes of dissent. My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.

Cohen doesn’t note the way Turkey “raised the ante” and makes a not so subtle suggestion of inordinate Jewish influence in the political process. Running total: Anti-Israel 1 / Pro-Israel 1
3) An Israeli Case for a Palestinian State - Yossi Alpher – September 11, 2011

No Israeli leader will acquiesce in these Palestinian positions, and no bridging formula has proven workable. These negotiating gaps are, as Abbas himself acknowledged in 2009, “too wide.”Thus Abbas has turned to the United Nations not only because the Palestinian state-building enterprise in the West Bank has proved successful, but also because it is clear that Oslo-based final-status negotiations, even if they reconvene, cannot succeed in ending all claims. In this sense, it is Abbas’ intransigence on a full final status package, no less than Netanyahu’s, that has brought us to the United Nations. Yet here the two part company: Abbas appears genuinely to want progress toward a viable two-state solution, while Netanyahu’s ideology and the composition of his coalition signal intransigence.

In the run up to the Palestinian gambit at the UN, the Times ran a number of op-eds and editorial criticizing Israel for forcing the Palestinians to turn to the UN or endorsing the Palestinian move or both. It is dishonest to claim that Abbas “genuinely” wants progress. Even the recent “speed dial” story, which portrayed Abbas sympathetically, noted that the expected President Obama to get results by pressuring Netanyahu. He wants progress as long as others do the work for him. Running Total: Anti-Israel 2 / Pro-Israel 1
4) About these proposals - David Makovsky – September 11, 2011

The settlers in these areas and others outlined in Maps 1-3 will most likely have to be evacuated completely, as the alternative of remaining under Palestinian rule is both problematic and unlikely. Theoretically, the parties could pursue an alternative scenario in which non-bloc settlers were not displaced at all, but rather remained where they were under Palestinian sovereignty. On paper, this approach has surface appeal because it would eliminate the need for coercive dislocation. However, there are several reasons to be skeptical. First, virtually all of the 300,000 settlers in the West Bank moved there intending to live under Israeli, not Palestinian, sovereignty. Second, for the small number who chose to remain in a Palestinian-run West Bank, it is unclear whether they could live there harmoniously. Specifically, once Israel withdraws its military forces from non-annexed portions of the West Bank, Hamas elements and other extremists may decide to take advantage of the emergence of the fledgling state to settle longstanding scores with remaining settlers. Some have even speculated that the most ideological settlers could initiate a confrontation, which could force the Israeli military to return in order to defend them. For these and other reasons, allowing non-bloc settlers to remain in the West Bank might complicate the implementation of any peace agreement.

This is mostly informational as Makovsky looks at 3 maps of possible final settlements. There are aspects of it that I don’t like. Most notably in this third paragraph he doesn’t even mention that the Palestinians wouldn’t allow Jews in their state. Did I ever mention that in 1984 I heard Makovsky speak in Kiryat Arba? Despite my misgivings I will grade this as neutral. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 2 / Pro-Israel – 1
5) Veto a state; lose an ally - Turki al-Faisal – September 11, 2011

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region. Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.

Ten years after hijackers – 15 of 19 of them Saudi nationals – attacked America killing nearly 3000 innocents, a member of the Saudi royal family reminds of us of what good friends Saudis have been – by threatening to break with the United States over the issue of Palestinian statehood. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 3 / Pro-Israel – 1
6) Palestinian Statehood - Editorial – September 11, 2011

Last week, the United States made a listless effort to get Palestinians to forgo the vote in favor of new peace talks. The pitch was unpersuasive. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said the Americans made no concrete proposal. “To be frank with you, they came too late,” he said. His frustration is understandable. Since President Obama took office, the only direct negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mr. Abbas lasted a mere two weeks in September 2010. Both sides share the blame with Mr. Obama and Arab leaders (we put the greater onus on Mr. Netanyahu, who has used any excuse to thwart peace efforts). But the best path to statehood remains negotiations.

Later I’ll deal with last week’s Thomas Friedman column. Friedman correctly notes that Netanyahu agreed to a freeze and Abbas barely agreed to talks before walking out. Then he blamed Netanyahu for not giving Abbas another chance. Friedman’s column, even if illogical, had the advantage of being accurate. This editorial can’t even claim to be accurate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 4 / Pro-Israel – 1
7) After the UN vote on Palestine - Jimmy Carter – September 13, 2011

The U.S. has basically withdrawn from active participation in the peace process. The Palestinians and other Arabs have interpreted U.S. policy as acquiescing on the occupation and biased against them. Declaring that they are left with no alternative, Palestinians plan to request recognition of a Palestinian state later this month in the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly. In Egypt, militants have overrun the Israeli embassy and forced the evacuation of the ambassador. With the reasonable assumptions that Palestinian statehood is widely recognized despite a U.S. veto in the Security Council, what are the options for the future?

Thus Carter recommends an international effort – led by Europe – to fulfill all the conditions that “everyone knows” will bring peace but have been rejected by Yasser Arafat in 2000 and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Of course it doesn’t bother him in the slightest that “militants” attacked the Israeli embassy in Egypt violating international norms. So if the Palestinians don’t like the agreement he proposes they can attack Israel with impunity, until the terms change to their liking? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 6 / Pro-Israel – 1
9) Israel and New York’s Ninth District - Editorial – September

Some analysts — and eager Republican critics — are also claiming it was a repudiation of President Obama’s policies toward Israel. On Wednesday, an article on the Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that “in politics it is the perception that counts,” and that the Democratic loss “will be portrayed, as the outspoken former Mayor Ed Koch put it, ‘as a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under a bus with impunity.’ ” Mr. Obama has done nothing of the sort; his support for Israel has never wavered. But we fear that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will read the election as yet another reason to ignore the president’s advice and refuse to make any compromises with the Palestinians, no matter how essential for Israel’s own security.

As noted above the editorial board of the New York Times doesn’t remember that Netanyahu imposed a construction freeze. Despite that freeze that didn’t serve to get meaningful negotiations started despite political risks, President Obama continued to treat Netanyahu as the main obstacle to peace. If Netanyahu learned anything from that incident it was that he had to look out for his country first, not for empty promises or assurances.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 7 / Pro-Israel – 1
10) Ten Reasons for a European ‘Yes’ by Martti Ahtisaari and Javier Solana – September 16, 2011

The second reason for a European “yes” is that the Europeans have already invested hugely in the two-state solution that is under scrutiny, including the annual €1 billion aid to help build a functioning Palestinian state. Again, a “yes” is a reaffirmation that the project is worthwhile and can succeed. The third reason for a “yes” is simply to respond positively to Mahmoud Abbas’ state-building achievements. Failing to vote “yes” would be to respond to demands for state-building by refusing to formally acknowledge where they have got to. The fourth reason is about the Arab Spring. Anything other than a “yes” would expose Europeans to charges of double standards from both post-revolutionary governments and conservative Arab regimes (for different reasons) for failing to support rights for Palestinians while advocating them elsewhere.

I won’t subject you to the other 7. Yes there has been state-building or at least institution-building on the part of the PA. Though it is usually, Salam Fayyad, not Abbas who is credited for it. But the PA still has little functioning economy outside of foreign aid. (The hated American and Israelis, according to Jonathan Schanzer, provide nearly three quarters of the PA’s budget.) Finally as it becomes clearer that Abbas is no different from Mubarak, except perhaps in the scale of his corruption, it’s false to claim that empowering Abbas is the same thing as empowering Palestinians generally. Running Total – Anti-Israel – 8 / Pro-Israel – 1
11) Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone - Thomas L. Friedman – September 17, 2011

On Turkey, the Obama team and Mr. Netanyahu’s lawyers worked tirelessly these last two months to resolve the crisis stemming from the killing by Israeli commandos of Turkish civilians in the May 2010 Turkish aid flotilla that recklessly tried to land in Gaza. Turkey was demanding an apology. According to an exhaustive article about the talks by the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, the two sides agreed that Israel would apologize only for “operational mistakes” and the Turks would agree to not raise legal claims. Bibi then undercut his own lawyers and rejected the deal, out of national pride and fear that Mr. Lieberman would use it against him. So Turkey threw out the Israeli ambassador.

Reader Lynn pointed out that Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reported:

The Israeli official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Turks kept adding conditions for a reconciliation, raising uncertainty in Mr. Netanyahu’s government over whether they were sincere and whether they would consider the case closed even if a deal were reached.

Apparently if necessary for condemning Israel, Friedman won’t read his own newspaper. If the other party keeps adding conditions it isn’t “national pride” that would motivate Israel not to make a deal, but common sense.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 9 / Pro-Israel – 1
12) Peace Now or Never - Ehud Olmert – September 21, 2011

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds. Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence. These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

This must be a first: calling on a disgraced leader to lecture his successor. The problem, as we’ll see with Thomas Friedman’s upcoming column is that Olmert claims that all Netanyahu needs to do is to offer Abbas what Abbas has already rejected. If Abbas knows that there’s no penalty for bad faith, why would he ever agree to terms with Israel? Running Total: Anti-Israel – 10 / Pro-Israel – 1
13) Ready for Statehood - Jonas Gahr Store – September 22, 2011

So the answer to my initial question — whether the Palestinians can actually run a state — is yes. By building robust and well-functioning institutions, the Palestinians and the donor community have taken a bottom-up approach to the peace process. The final status issues — borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem — can only be settled through negotiations, which is an example of a top-down approach. In an ideal world, these two approaches should have converged. Regretfully, they haven’t. This is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

There is no acknowledgment that it is the Palestinians who refuse negotiations. I also believe that Store is overselling Palestinian accomplishments in state building. If I were feeling generous, I might have graded this one as neutral, but I’m not. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 11 / Pro-Israel 1
14) The Palestinians’ Bid - Editorial – September 22, 2011

There is plenty of blame to go around. The main responsibility right now belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace. He appears far more concerned about his own political survival than his country’s increasing isolation or the threat of renewed violence in the West Bank and all around Israel’s borders.

Likud currently is the most popular party in Israel. If elections were held today, he likely would return as head of government. In other words, his political survival is not a major concern right now. Israel’s increased isolation is a function of issues having nothing to do with the Palestinians. And, of course, it is Abbas who refuses to negotiate. Running Total: Anti-Israel – 12 / Pro-Israel 1
15) Tangled Relationship in Jerusalem - Arthur Brisbane – September 24, 2011

The article by Max Blumenthal on Sept. 14 set off a chain of follow-up pieces by others and by Mr. Blumenthal himself, hammering away at the allegation that Ethan Bronner, the Times bureau chief, was compromised by his relationship with a public relations firm that arranged paid speaking engagements for him. A close examination of the facts leads me to conclude that the case for an actual conflict of interest is slender. But the appearance of a conflict clearly exists, and that is a problem in and of itself. The Times’s “Ethical Journalism” guidelines state that staff members “may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage.” Mr. Bronner has now severed his ties to the public relations firm. “In my view, it is all about appearances,” he told me. “I am not denying they matter. There is nothing of an actual conflict.”

Given how little care Brisbane – the public editor of the New York Times – shows for getting facts from the Middle East correct, it’s outrageous that he’s making an issue out of “appearances.” His predecessor, Clark Hoyt, accepted the charges of Ali Abuminah against Bronner uncritically; and now Brisbane has showed the same courtesy to Blumenthal. Both Abuminah and Blumenthal are anti-Israel activists whose activism should compromise their credibility. Clay Waters observes, “If Bronner truly harbors Zionist sympathies, he keeps it out of his reporting quite effectively.” Israel Matzav debunks the notion that the speakers bureau with which Bronner was affiliated was “right wing” and shows that Blumenthals time line is false. Brisbane has followed up with letters about his column, Conflicts and Appearances. All but one are unsympathetic to Bronner. (Two cover the topic in the abstract, but it is clear that they support Blumenthal.) If the New York Times removes Bronner, it will show that the New York Times has no backbone when faced with extreme anti-Israel activists.Running Total: Anti-Israel – 13 / Pro-Israel 1 16) 2 for 2, or 2 for 1? - Thomas Friedman – September 27, 2011

Given these stakes, here is what a farsighted Israeli government would say to itself: “We have so much more to lose than the Palestinians if all this collapses. So let’s go the extra mile. Abbas says he will not come to peace talks without a freeze on settlement-building. We think that is bogus. We gave him a 10-month partial freeze and he did nothing with it. But you know what? There is so much at stake here, let’s test him again. Let’s offer him a six-month total freeze on settlement-building. What is six months in the history of 5,000-year-old people? We already have 300,000 settlers in place. It is a win-win strategy that in no way imperils our security. If the Palestinians still balk, they will be the ones isolated, not us. And, if they come, who knows? Maybe we cut a deal.”

Unlike the editorial cited above, at least Friedman has the honesty to acknowledge Netanyahu’s settlement freeze. Like Ehud Olmert, Friedman believes that if the Palestinians refuse, it’s Israel’s obligation to keep the offer on the table until they say, “yes.” This is not farsightedness, but a stupid negotiating tactic. Final monthly tally: Anti-Israel – 14 / Pro-Israel 1

Methodology: I searched the archives for the New York Times for op-eds and unsigned editorials from the New York Times from September 1 – 30, 2011. I did not include letters to the editor or articles that were not mainly about Israel or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Rep Keith Ellison’s Support the Palestinian State and Carlo Strenger’s Netanyahu’s allies, Democracy’s enemies were not returned in the search so they were not included. The impetus for doing this index was previous public editor, Clark Hoyt’s The Danger of the one sided debate. Hoyt defended the paper’s decision to publish an op-ed by a spokesman for Hamas by arguing:

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.

This is specious. Giving space to a member of terrorist organization is arguably providing material support. But as these indexes demonstrate, there is no paucity of anti-Israel voices published on the opinion pages of the New York Times. Indeed it seems that criticism of Israel is the one side of the debate that the New York Times is dedicated to presenting.

Some may argue that maybe the NY Times only received submissions that were anti-Israel.  That is doubtful, the Times receives hundreds of submissions every day and cherry-picks through the ones they want.  Remember in 2008 when they ran an Op Ed by Barack Obama and refused to print the rebuttal by McCain? That is the NY Times, sometimes they editorialize not by what they run but by they refuse to run, and in this case for every 14 negative Op Eds they run about Israel, they run one positive one.

What The Betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 Can Teach Us About The World Today

“We have no interest in oppressing other people….It is not so much the country of Czechoslovakia; it is rather its leader, Edward Benes. He has led a reign of terror….The Czech maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a focus of danger. We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings.” –Adolph Hitler, April 14th, 1939 (quote not fully authenticated, see note at end of my article)

By Barry Rubin

Prague, Czech Republic

Visiting the Czech Republic prompts thoughts of the 1938 Munich agreement. Analogies with Nazism and the 1930s are overused today, made even more tasteless and cliché-ridden by the fact that many of those using them know very little about the situation then and now.

Beyond the simple narrative usually offered, a more detailed analysis shows a number of points that fit both situations better than people realize. That’s true despite the very important differences between the two cases.

After all, this pattern will not be repeated today. Western countries genuinely don’t want to sell Israel out, the balance of forces favors Israel and the West, they aren’t really afraid of direct war, the “other side” is badly divided, and Israel is much stronger than Czechoslovakia and is unwilling to sacrifice itself. Still there are lessons to be learned.

Let’s look at the 1938 crisis and its relationship with today from a different standpoint.

1. A bad cause with a good cover story

There was a large ethnic German minority in Czechoslovakia. These people, who lived in an area strategically important for Czech defense, certainly had some legitimate grievances British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain actually had some sympathy for the “suffering” Germans. Hitler didn’t just rant and rave. He knew, like radical regimes and movements today, how to play the victim.

Today, many people cannot believe that a humanitarian issue for which a real case can be made might also block understanding of a wider danger and the creation of a worse humanitarian issue.

The Palestinians are suffering. The Palestinians want a state. These are problems worthy of a solution, but what kind of a solution? Like saying the proletariat has poor living conditions or bigotry against Muslims is a bad thing, these are true enough statements but not ones that should overwhelm common sense and a legitimate self-interest.

Even the detail of blaming Netanyahu and Israel’s current government has its parallel in the 1938 case: the problem is portrayed as the intransigence of Benes rather than that of Czechoslovakia as a whole. Incidentally, after 1945 when he returned to power, Benes expelled by law virtually all of the country’s Hungarian and German minorities.

The Germans were victimized by an unfair diplomatic settlement after World War One. Guilt feelings, then as now, led the West to make some dangerous mistakes. Beware of aggressors and would-be committers of genocide asking for your sympathy.

2. Resentment against the “troublemaker” who is just trying to survive

it is forgotten how much antagonism there was at the time against Czechoslovakia. Western leaders made statements that it was all the fault of Czech President Edvard Beneš that there wasn’t peace, just like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is blamed today. In each case, the question was asked: Should this silly little stiff-necked people that is greedy for territory and doesn’t know its own interests endanger our very existence?

Chamberlain said in a radio interview:

“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

Contemporary terrorism or revolutionary Islamism or hatred of the West among Arabs and Muslims is blamed on Israel. One is going to hate somebody who unnecessarily endangers your life and well-being. This easily passes over into antisemitism: How dare that [expletive deleted] little country, to quote statements made in private by French and British diplomats in recent years, risk the fate of the world. Those same statements were made about Czechoslovakia.

3. Misunderstanding the enemy’s ideology, means and goals

Just as today governments have banned phrases like “the war on terrorism” or “the war on revolutionary Islamism,” so the British and French governments of the time refused to think about a “war on fascism,” “war on Nazism,” or “war on German imperialism.”

Not understanding the enemy—its nature, goals, and ideology—produced a massive miscalculation. Chamberlain believed that Hitler just wanted dominance over Czechoslovakia and there would be no more claims. In the same manner, much of the media, university, government complex (MUG) today thinks that an independent Palestinian state would be the end of history after which there would be no more aggression, claims, demands, or crises.

4. Creating a conflict resolution peace process that ensures war.

The British and French governments repeatedly advised the Czechs to give in and pushed them to do so. They appointed a special mediator (sound familiar?) who devised a number of plans. Each time the Czechs produced a plan, the “international community” pressed for more concessions to please the Germans. On the fourth round the Czechs finally were ready to surrender enough to meet the approval of London and Paris, though Prague still hesitated.

But at that point, Hitler again played the humanitarian card. The Czechs, he claimed, were murdering Sudeten Germans. The idea of Hitler effectively lying that others were murdering civilians in order to get his way while he was sending people to concentration camps seems bizarre but it worked.

Iran and other dictatorships and totalitarian movements do the same thing today. Check out the membership of the UN Human Rights council and the obsession with “human rights” groups in bashing Israel. An imaginary parallel would be if the League of Nations (the UN’s predecessor) had appointed a commission that found the Czechs guilty of human rights violations while refusing to investigate Nazi Germany.

The last straw in 1938 came when the British and French told the Czech government that its policies were so bad that they would not defend it if the Germans attacked. Once again the Czechs gave in.

Guess what happened then? Immediately, Hitler raised new demands and he got still more concessions! Today, the Palestinian Authority says that if it were to get its independence recognized at the UN it would immediately raise additional demands—for example, that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants who so wish can go to live in Israel .

In addition, the basic structure of the 1938 plan parallels today’s proposals on Palstine: first territory is given up by the victim, then once it is strategically weakened the other remaining issues will be dealt with. In exchange for territorial concessions, the victim receives international security guarantees that later prove worthless

5. Search for a cost-free (for them) solution leading the West into a maximum-cost crisis

Underlying the 1938 maneuvers was the search by the Western European allies for a solution that would cost them nothing because the victim would pay the bill. They didn’t want war or confrontation with Germany; they didn’t understand the nature of the adversary; they knew that promising “peace in our time,” Chamberlain’s phrase, would be popular with their constituents, they didn’t care about the Czechs.

Let me repeat, this is not 1938 and Israel is not in the same situation as Czechoslovakia back then. The adversary today is badly divided, for example, and Israel is willing and able to defend itself. Pressure on the West to appease and to give very much is far lower. They just talk and then go away to do something else for a while. Even the existence of the 1938 story contributes significantly to avoiding the same mistake.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn some important lessons.

–Don’t buy humanitarian explanations for aggressive and radical demands.

–Identify your enemies correctly and know their ideology, goals, and tricks.

–Don’t be angry at the intended victim and accept lies about it by your own common adversaries.

–Don’t engage in a process of progressive surrender in which a chain of unilateral concessions are substituted for standing on principle and demanding one’s own interests be respected

–Think about whether a proposed solution is really lasting or is just going to make things worse

–If you fear to confront an aggressive dictatorship or ideology you will end by confronting it on worse terms.

Note: I have not authenticated the Hitler quote to my full satisfaction. It does fit with his policy at the time. I will be happy to remove it if the quotation is not accurate or to add a proper source if it is .

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

NBC's David Gregory Tries To Get Netanyahu To Create an Obama Commercial

On Today's Meet the Press, Liberal activist/host David Gregory campaigned for President Obama to recover his standing in the Jewish Community. Actually what he tried to do is get Binyamin Netanyahu to say that Obama is as big a friend to Israel as Bush.  When that didn't work he tried to get Bibi to bash Mitt Romney's statement saying criticizing Obama's stance on Israel.  When Netanyahu refused to bite on the first two attempts Gregory tried to get him to say that support of Israel should not be a campaign issue.

As you can see by the partial transcript and video below, Netanyahu dodged Gregory's best attempts at trying to create a sound-bite for an Obama commercial:

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Back in 2002, you said Israel has had no better friend in the White House than George W. Bush. Would you say the same about President Obama?

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They've all been great friends of Israel. You know why?

MR. GREGORY: You said, "No better friend in the White House than George W. Bush."

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: When did I say that?

MR. GREGORY: 2002 on this program.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: OK. Well, they keep moving. They keep adding new people to--you know, that's the peculiar thing about our system, the leaders, the leaders keep changing.

MR. GREGORY: So George W. Bush and President Obama are equivalent in your mind.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: God, I'm not going...

MR. GREGORY: I'm asking--no, but I'm asking you a serious question.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I'm not going to start ranking. I'll tell you what, they're all...

MR. GREGORY: You did rank. But, Prime Minister, you did rank. And you said that America was behind you; and, in fact, this has been a frosty relationship between this administration and your administration. And the reality is that there's politics in this country and a presidential campaign. Just this week, you had Mitt Romney, a Republican, say of Obama that he threw Israel under the bus. Rick Perry described Obama's Middle East policy as naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous. Do you disagree with those statements?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: David, you're trying to throw me under the bus of American politics. And guess what, I'm not going to be thrown there. So I'll tell you what...

MR. GREGORY: You didn't mind disagreeing with President Clinton's analysis this week about the Middle East.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: Do you disagree with these Republican candidates?


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the important thing to understand is this, and, and this is the truth about America, Israel enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, tremendous. And, and, and, you know, you just have to walk around the breadth and length of this country, it's--or fly, it's a big country--and everywhere you go, you see this tremendous, tremendous sympathy and affinity for Israel. This is what, I think, is one of the great blessings that Israel has in the, in the 21st century. So--and I think that bipartisan support is expressed by any person who happens to be the president of the United States...

MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned that partisanship is being injected into this?

(if you cannot see video below please click here)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NBC News: Working For the re-election of Obama as best they can.

Source: NBC News

Bob Beckel is Either Too Partisan or Too Lazy to Check His Israeli "Settlement" Facts

Whenever I think that Barack Obama has had his worst week ever...he finds a way to make it worse. This week began with more Solyndra revelations tying the failed Solar Panel firm's federal loan to politics directed by the Obama White House and it ended at the United Nations where President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, which more than anything was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy.

According to Bob Beckel on Friday's The Five Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with the fact that Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, its all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. To be hones I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent  history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities  in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling Adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for Illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the Settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy, was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration which was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel, 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the Administration is lying.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9  months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on Mr. Beckel.

After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. With the end of the freeze pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely.  No one questioned the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

The US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. And the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."

As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA.  If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze.  As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. 

He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish  State of Israel. And while Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never had before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel.  Something Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel is what are called facts.

Its not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media, Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.

Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.

Clinton's a Liar! Netanyahu Has Agreed To More Concessions Than Rabin Ever Did

Former President Bill Clinton said some pretty outlandish things about the Middle East this week.

During the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, Clinton said the reluctance of Netanyahu to accept peace treaty terms reached at Camp David in 2000 is a main reason for a lack of peace today, The Jerusalem Post reported.

"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [former Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's stroke," Clinton said Thursday.

Granted, I have never been President of the United States, nor have I ever wasted a good Cuban Cigar the way Clinton did, but I would suggest the fact that Yassar Arafat walked out of the 2000 talks have more do do with the lack of peace than Bibi Netanyahu rejecting terms that were never part of a consummated peace treaty.

As for Sharon, the former president is totally deluded. The withdrawal from Gaza was in 2005, five years after Clinton left the payroll of the United States and placed himself on the payroll of Dubai and Saudi Arabia.Soon after disengagement Hamas started sending missiles into Israeli Territory, if Sharon wasn't in his comatose state at the time he would have turned Gaza into a parking lot and then re-occupied it.

Clinton did work directly with Rabin.  He forgets though that Rabin was a pragmatic man, who negotiated with (and even shook hands with) a terrorist  simply to prevent further bloodshed of innocent Israelis, but he wasn't willing to negotiate away Israel's security or her heritage.

Since his death, the myth of Rabin's peacemaking expanded.  While it is true that he was the Prime Minister who began the "Oslo Process, " it is also true that his final vision for the process was to the right of supposedly "hawkish" Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Rabin did not support the creation of a Palestinian State, while Netanyahu does. Like Bibi, Rabin did not support the division of Jerusalem. Rabin was not the "sacrifice everything for the sake of peace" type that the Labor Party Premiers who came after him. The truth is despite what Bill Clinton Says, Yitzchak Rabin was the last prime minister of Israel that did not support the creation of a Palestinian State.

Nine days before he died, Rabin delivered a speech to the Knesset that laid out his vision for the future of Israel and the disputed territories, including:

• No Palestinian State: "We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."

• No return to '67 borders: "The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines."

• Control of Jordan Valley: "The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term."

• Gush Katif as model: "The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif."

• All settlements remain intact during interim period: "I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth."

• United Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.

• (During interim period) "The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.

(The entire speech can be found here)

None of this is done to denigrate the memory of the Israeli PM who was slaughtered 15 years ago, its more to show the true nature of the media and world leaders. They have taken upon themselves to recreate Rabin into something he was not. For many years, Rabin’s legacy was defined by the dreams of  the peace process that he was engaged in with the Palestinians at the time of his murder. Whether this was what he would have wanted has been debated by his relatives and confidants, some of whom were aware of his growing  doubts about the intentions of Yasser Arafat, who was already sabotaging the diplomatic process by ordering terrorist attacks before, during and after the time of Rabin’s assassination.

Bill Clinton have known that at the time of his death Rabin was ready to bail on the Oslo process.

Last year Rabin's daughter Dalia wrote in an Israeli magazine :

"Many people who were close to father told me that on the eve of the murder he considered stopping the Oslo process because of the terror that was running rampant in the streets and that Arafat wasn't delivering the goods.

Father after all wasn't a blind man running forward without thought. I don't rule out the possibility that he considered also doing a reverse on our side.

After all he was someone for whom the security of the state was sacrosanct."

None of this is meant to disparage the memory of Rabin. Indeed, understanding that he was not a blind peace-maker like some of the Prime Ministers who followed him such as Peres, Barak and Olmert, enhances his memory. The Oslo process that he began, came to be roundly criticized as it lead to a deadly violence including the second intifada, while at the same time consolidating the power of the terrorist Arafat. But who can honestly know what would have happened if a crazy zealot didn't strike him down 16 years ago. Oslo might have been over long before the intifada and Arafat might have been sent back to his hiding place in Tripoli.

One thing is for sure, the same people who like Bill Clinton, created the revered image of Yitzchak Rabin vilify Benyamin Netanyahu even though Bibi's positions more moderate than the great peace maker Rabin.

Its very interesting the way history can work if Yitzhak Rabin was alive in 2000 that near deal that Yassir Arafat walked out on would have never happened. Yet Bill Clinton attacks Netanuyahu for having a more moderate position.  His criticism was simply a big political lie, unless of course it depends what is-is.

Obama's UN Speech Continues His Disastrous Israel Policy

They say a leopard doesn't change his spots, well neither does this President.  Those who though that the NY-9 election and recent polls would cause Obama to temper his one-sided policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian dispute were very disappointing. It's not what he said that should be alarming to friends of Israel, its what he didn't say, namely that Israel needed to be recognized as the Jewish State.  Oh he flirted around it sometimes, but carefully negotiated around stating it, an act of appeasement to those who would destroy Israel. It is that one recognition which keeps this 40 year dispute alive (remember before 1967 Judea, Samaria were part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt).

This is what the President actually said about recognition of Israel at the UN Today.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.

Some will say "see he talked about the Jewish people, you can assume that's what he meant." Sadly in diplomacy as well as "Odd Couple" reruns, when you assume you make an ass of u and me.

The avoidance of calling Israel the Jewish State was no accident. As recently as last month the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish State

For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is  the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947,  UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States. 

Israeli Prime Minister outlined it brilliantly in his speech before Congress at the end of May. He talked about how Israel has been ready to establish a Palestinian State for decades, but there has been one hold-up.

“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about....

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."

A few days before Netanyahu made his speech in the halls of Congress, President Obama gave his big Mid East peace speech. He spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, and included the controversial call for negotiations to start with recognition of Israel's return to the 1949 Armistice lines,  but  he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. 

Today in front of the UN General Assembly he made the same mistake.  

I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year.  That basis is clear.  It’s well known to all of us here.  Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security.  Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

....We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve.  There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long.  It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

 Again he fails to mention that the reason it has taken so long is the Palestinian refusal to accept the fact that the Jewish State of Israel has the basic right to exist. The simple truth is that with seven words, President Abbas can get what he wants "We Accept a Jewish State of Israel." Once he says that all the other issues will become much easier.

But President Abbas will not make that declaration, and President Obama is satisfied with making demands of Israel while refusing to demand that the Palestinian side make the most basic of statements. Israel cannot negotiate with someone who does not believe that it should exist.  And President Obama will never regain the trust of voters who support Israel as long as he continues to appease the Palestinians lack of this basic recognition.

Well-Meaning American Jews Are Unknowingly Financing Israel Radical Left

By Barry Rubin

A newly leaked U.S. Embassy cable provides a startling revelation not so much of extremist anti-Israel views of one high-ranking New Israel Fund official but how money supposedly raised for good deeds pays for full-time radical activists and finances the Israeli political far-left.

And this introduced the complex story of an Israeli social protest movement torn between trying to solve real problems by very specific reforms and seeking to bring down the government and transform Israel into a version of an economically faltering European welfare state.

As a result of the Palestinian leadership’s refusal to make peace, the 1990s’ peace process’s failure, and the violent 2000-2005 intifada, the Israeli left largely disintegrated or moved toward the center. Suddenly, however, the left has revived in recent months by shifting from failed proposals for massive concessions to the Palestinians to protests about Israeli housing and other prices. In this context, Israel’s social protest movement has nothing to do with the “Arab Spring” and everything to do with trends in Europe and North America.

Of course, many Israelis face real problems with the gap between wages and living costs. Almost everyone I meet–including those on the right—sympathize with the protest even if they have doubts about its leaders and demand. They also all know a long list of factors making Israel different from Europe or North America. Most understand that Israel has prospered because of jettisoning once-useful but now burdensome socialist features. A few years ago finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu became a hero even to many on the left for successful privatization reforms. More recently, the very economic decisions tending to make prices higher and keep wages lower also kept down unemployment, debt, and inflation.

Today’s problems that have motivated protests are a combination of remaining socialist practices, peculiarities of Israel’s social structure, and the country’s security situation. They have nothing much to do with capitalism or class conflict. And they could be reduced by some relatively simple measures.

The most criticized institutions are socialist-based like the dairy monopoly and the idea that the state should control land. The religious sector, rather than favoring Tea Parties and government spending cuts, tends to be the biggest per capita welfare recipients. Supermarket prices are high due to the country’s small market, protectionism, and kashrut standards. Israel’s health system, which some call “socialized medicine” functions pretty well. There are no big landlords; trade unions aren’t important factors.

Taxes are high and security issues–most recently the need to rebuild defenses on the border with Egypt–eat up money that might otherwise be used for social welfare. Despite all these things, living standards have risen steadily over the years but maintaining them is stressful for people who often depend on a revolving line of credit from their banks (the overdraft) which they pay off with every month’s pay check.

To demand the dairy monopoly is broken up to allow competition or that new land beyond the suburbs be opened up for building low-cost housing can succeed. To demand that capitalism be overthrown (in a country that isn’t wildly capitalistic to begin with), that banks provide loans to people who can’t pay them back to buy apartments in expensive urban areas, or that the government go into debt to expand entitlements won’t.

Now let’s consider how a recently revealed February 2010 cable from the U.S. embassy of a conversation with Hedva Radovanitz, then associate director of the New Israel Fund (NIF) in Israel, fits into this picture.

A media furor arose from Radovanitz telling the American diplomat “that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.” In other words, the “New Israel” would be a dead Israel.

The NIF has issued a statement that Radovanitz was speaking for herself, left NIF a year ago, and that the organization disagrees with her statement. Radovanitz’s own statement seems designed to make the NIF look good. Mention of her past association is suspiciously absent from NIF sites. Her far-left background makes it seem as if the NIF knew her views when she was hired and wasn’t bothered by them.

Yet all of this is relatively unimportant compared to the rest of the leaked cable. The NIF solicits contributions in the United States by presenting itself as a pro-Israel liberal group promoting social justice in Israel including assisting the poor, helping the handicapped, promoting equality for Arabs, and other good causes. In reality, much of its funds go to support left-wing full-time “community organizers” and to subsidize political movements. In a sense, the NIF might be Israel’s equivalent of George Soros. The difference is that Soros knows the political goals his money being used for; the NIF’s contributors don’t.

So Radovanitz tells the American diplomat that the big problem is the “disappearance of the political left wing,” giving as an example one such NGO had shrunk from 5,000 members to less than 800. The left wing, she continued, only hold demonstrations by using NGO staff members, presumably paid with NIF grants, to pretend they were regular concerned citizens.

The NIF’s plan, said Radovanitz, was to create “a movement rather than just a lot of NGOs.” This strategy worked. Eighteen months later, the NIF was main funder of a large “social protest” movement.

A new NGO Monitor report details how NIF funding has gone to left-wing groups more involved in political propaganda and organizing than in charity or social welfare work. The money is used for challenging Israeli policies, helping its enemies, and rebuilding the Israeli left.

In other words, the NIF really doesn’t agree with Radovanitz that the New Israel should be a dead Israel. Rather, it wants the New Israel to be an Israel in debt with high unemployment, inflation, a sick economy, a strangling government bureaucracy, and even more onerous taxes.

Again, the social protest movement is contending with real problems. The demonstrators don’t want an anti-capitalist revolution but reasonable adjustments to make their lives easier.

But will the movement focus on solving shortcomings in a realistic manner—reducing government bureaucracy to increase construction; limited, focused help to those needing housing; and better competition to cut prices–or attacking capitalism and advocating massive government subsidies like those playing havoc with Western economies?

Uniquely Israeli factors may determine events. Possibly violent Palestinian demonstrations in late September; end of the fun-to-demonstrate summer period; growing Egyptian radicalism; and big UN mess over unilateral Palestinian independence may push Israeli conversation back toward the usual stuff. A new party based on the social protest movement might actually sabotage the existing left. Former general Shaul Mofaz might become leader of Kadima, the main opposition party, a development equivalent to Senator Joe Lieberman becoming head of the Democratic Party.

Finally, those far-left (rather than moderate left of center) tendencies in the movement are likely to turn off most Israelis. When a half-dozen kids recruiting for the scout movement at my son’s elementary school show up wearing red shirts with a picture of Che Guevara (who supported anti-Israel terrorists) and the slogan “Change,” it sets off alarm bells. Unlike many in Europe and North America, building fantasy utopias and ignoring reality are things whose high price will discourage Israelis even more than the cost of apartments and cottage cheese.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>  ed